GNU bug report logs - #70579
30.0.50; gnus: Wrong unread count in the Group buffer

Previous Next

Full log

Message #35 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric <at> ericabrahamsen.net>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70579: 30.0.50; gnus: Wrong unread count in the Group buffer
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 08:49:19 -0700

James Thomas via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:


[...]

> Of course. I was only hoping that this would shed some light on the
> other unread-count problems.... IMO this is low-severity.

That was my hope too, bummer that it's its own bug. But still worth fixing.


[...]

>> I don't see why that should mean that you need a whole new buffer for
>> editing the message
>
> I can see a possible use case: you might want two versions of a draft
> message, one being a 'root' (or 'base') version.
>
>> , and the fact that there are now two "copies" of the
>> message buffer causes further problems with the inflating article
>> numbers (why I could sometimes see three or even four "jumps").
>>
>> The patch removes the check for modification
>
> If my guess above is correct, this should be avoided.

Hmm, I guess so, though I wonder how many people are making use of the
ability to have two copies, vs how many are confused by it. But
I suppose it ain't broke, so I shouldn't fix it. I do think I'll update
the code to use `find-buffer-visiting', though.

>> Anyway, please let me know if you can check the patch.

[...]

>>> There's also a small hiccup with its working: 'B DEL' in the recipe
>>> above does not work (i.e. it's not deleted - is it related to it already
>>> being marked with 'G' at that point?), unless I 'q', re-enter and retry.
>>
>> This issue remains.
>
> I'm mistaken about this too. I missed your explanation:
>
> Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
>> (the "B DEL" isn't necessary for the recipe, and in fact at that stage
>> the message under point has already been deleted).

The UX is fairly confusing, but it makes more sense if you remember that
"edit" is actually just "delete-and-create". And if you use "C-c C-k" as
intended :)

Okay, there may be more bugs here, but I'll put this much in and close
the report; please open a new report if you find more.

Thanks,
Eric

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.